2019 United States Disc Golf Championship Oct 2-5

[SD86]

Those designer insights into the hole design would have been better off in a preview video, not in the actual tournament. Somewhere between corny and cringe worthy, by the time the final round was on I was doing my best to ignore them.

Agree. I fast forwarded through them on the post-produced coverage. Glad I didn't pay for that (stuff).

 

[DiscFifty]

I asked someone and they told me that the numbers would be released. But so far, nothing. Hoping we hear about that. My guess is about 4K.

I'd like the ability to purchase specific rounds to watch. Maybe each round priced at 3.50.

 

[Harold Duvall]

Do viewers recall good throws with good course management going hazard or OB?

Or bad throws getting good results?


~ Harold

 

[Hampstead]

Do viewers recall good throws with good course management going hazard or OB?

Or bad throws getting good results?


~ Harold

In 2019, viewers like to complain about anything available

 

[jvphobic]

I'd like the ability to purchase specific rounds to watch. Maybe each round priced at 3.50.

While that might be useful for viewers. It would be less than practical for the events. It would be tough to gauge the amount that would be earned ahead of time. If I had my way, it would be a yearly subscription model, and then you can also purchase individual months at a time. I think that going round by round would have problems. Once you start charging so little per round, administration fees quickly eat into that.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Do viewers recall good throws with good course management going hazard or OB?

Or bad throws getting good results?


~ Harold

Personally, I remember good throws that don't turn out well.
Hitting a stake or top rope (in the past) or rolling OB because of slope.

Now having said that, I respect difficulty on a hole that forces a player to make a decision.
Hole 17 is a fairly easy Par 3, but a wicked hard 2.
If a player feels like they HAVE to go for it, that's on them.
That's good design.

But forcing every player to do the same thing, and then penalizing them for it (randomly) is not good design, and not fun to watch.

 

[Harold Duvall]

Personally, I remember good throws that don't turn out well.
Hitting a stake or top rope (in the past) or rolling OB because of slope.

Now having said that, I respect difficulty on a hole that forces a player to make a decision.
Hole 17 is a fairly easy Par 3, but a wicked hard 2.
If a player feels like they HAVE to go for it, that's on them.
That's good design.

But forcing every player to do the same thing, and then penalizing them for it (randomly) is not good design, and not fun to watch.

Was that for this year's Championship? We only have 50 weeks to prepare for 2020, and we want our vision to be as clear as possible?

 

[texasissouth]

Was that for this year's Championship? We only have 50 weeks to prepare for 2020, and we want our vision to be as clear as possible?

I think for viewership issues, some way of spotting OB for things like the bean hole is critical. If the audience can't tell a good/bad shot from camera angle, that's going to hurt viewership experience. Matching OB to the fairly limited landscape would be the most efficient way to keep the feel of WinthrOB Gold.
I seem to be in the minority that enjoyed the double mando tunnel. I thought without both mandos, pros will tend to take outside routes, defeating the purpose of testing to see if they have the MOST classic shot in disc golf - a dead straight 250' shot.

 

[Harold Duvall]

Good point about spotting OB. We are definitely looking at making OB more visible next year. We are also considering ways to change the shapes of the first, second and third island. The draught did not help us. The differential grass cut in the past helped to accentuate the fairway.

My sense is that player's will perform better on holes 3 and 4 in 2020. History shows that players play the holes better in subsequent years even as the holes are tweaked to account for the learning curve. It is possible that the second mandatory would be eliminated, widened, or left the same but have the target move closer.

Still looking for examples of good shots with good course management getting penalized or bad throws getting rewarded. That's one of the primary tests for the course. I did not get to watch as much of the play as I would have liked.

 

[elmexdela]

Good point about spotting OB. We are definitely looking at making OB more visible next year. We are also considering ways to change the shapes of the first, second and third island. The draught did not help us. The differential grass cut in the past helped to accentuate the fairway.

My sense is that player's will perform better on holes 3 and 4 in 2020. History shows that players play the holes better in subsequent years even as the holes are tweaked to account for the learning curve. It is possible that the second mandatory would be eliminated, widened, or left the same but have the target move closer.

Still looking for examples of good shots with good course management getting penalized or bad throws getting rewarded. That's one of the primary tests for the course. I did not get to watch as much of the play as I would have liked.

according to some on here nikkos albatross was bs

whats your thoughts on that

 

[Steve West]

Do viewers recall good throws with good course management going hazard or OB?

Or bad throws getting good results?


~ Harold

Perhaps that is not the point.

Sure, about 90% of throws did not incur a penalty, which is about the same % of throws that are normally good enough to score well-set par.

However, the consequence of making one bad throw is usually adding one to the score.

If all the penalized throws were bad throws, then basically all the bad throws incurred a penalty. So, the consequence for making a bad throw was adding two to the score.

There is no need for that.

And, of course, if the overlap was not perfect, then some good throws were penalized.

 

[dehaas]

I get that the double rope probably takes a lot more effort and is more expensive, but that was the one thing I couldn't get beyond watching any of the footage. Some holes are classics, so you know where the OB is, but holes like the kidney beans and a few others you had no idea on video if it was good or not.

Almost to the point that I just didn't care watching the videos. I know some knock all the OB, but you can't say that the potential for anybody to blow up on any given hole doesn't make it exciting until the very end.

I think for viewership issues, some way of spotting OB for things like the bean hole is critical. If the audience can't tell a good/bad shot from camera angle, that's going to hurt viewership experience. Matching OB to the fairly limited landscape would be the most efficient way to keep the feel of WinthrOB Gold.
I seem to be in the minority that enjoyed the double mando tunnel. I thought without both mandos, pros will tend to take outside routes, defeating the purpose of testing to see if they have the MOST classic shot in disc golf - a dead straight 250' shot.

 

[Harold Duvall]

Like all aces, I think the target kept Nikko closer than if it had not been there. I am not sure if the disc would have stayed in the grass, come to rest in the road, or skipped back fair. While it wasn't quite like wooded shots missing the lane and traveling the parallel luck highway to the basket, the target definitely saved Nikko a stroke.

Another thought I have relates to Nikko's reaction. His joy was beautiful to behold. One of our design goals with the Arena course is to engage the players emotionally, not just intellectually, and to use that emotion to form a stronger bond to the audience.

 

[Jolt]

It was very hard to see if a drive was good or bad on the new hole 3. . .you saw a drive into a big field, but not really how it landed related to the mando

Then we have the problem to see where the OB was on many holes...you just saw the disc land in a sea of stakes. . no idea if it was OB or safe

 

[swhite]

Still looking for examples of good shots with good course management getting penalized or bad shots getting rewarded. That's one of the primary tests for the course. I did not get to watch as much of the play as I would have liked.

I suppose that I would consider hole 3 to be one where a bad throw can reward the player.

Eagle M's roller, shown in the video below, misses the mandatory, which means that he progresses forward to the drop zone. In this video, and others, the commentators were suggesting that some players were choosing to intentionally miss the mandatory on the first throw.

 

[Harold Duvall]

I suppose that I would consider hole 3 to be one where a bad throw can reward the player.

Eagle M's roller, shown in the video below, misses the mandatory, which means that he progresses forward to the drop zone. In this video, and others, the commentators were suggesting that some players were choosing to intentionally miss the mandatory on the first throw.

I heard Eagle's comment, and I was intrigued by his strategy. 3B seems like one of the safest birdie opportunities on the Arena course for someone with Eagle's backhand distance. The location of the drop zone in front of the mandatory was part of the design to encourage spectacularity. Eagle's roller was certainly spectacular.

 

[Harold Duvall]

Perhaps that is not the point.

Sure, about 90% of throws did not incur a penalty, which is about the same % of throws that are normally good enough to score well-set par.

However, the consequence of making one bad throw is usually adding one to the score.

If all the penalized throws were bad throws, then basically all the bad throws incurred a penalty. So, the consequence for making a bad throw was adding two to the score.

There is no need for that.

And, of course, if the overlap was not perfect, then some good throws were penalized.

Hi Steve, Like many models of the psyche, there are three people running around inside my design head. My question gives voice to the sportsman in me. Despite falling further than any open division champion, my inner athlete still wants to know that the throws are pretty doable and to be presented with some interesting strategy choices. *

Then there is the game design, accountability, math guy in me who wants to have the best matching of score to demonstrated skill. This guy does not like throw-and-distance at all. He would opt for more progressive drop zones and distance only penalties. This guy loves talking to Steve West and Chuck Kennedy.

Finally there is my inner Pete May. He wants to make disc golf spectacular. He wants players to experience "the thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat." If we do this right, the spectators will be hooked to the "human drama of athletic competition." This drama is experienced mostly by the player in traditional disc golf.

The challenge is for young Harold, Pete, Steve and Chuck to play nicely together. That's the motivation for the original question. I agree that there is no need to add two to a score for traditional disc golf which is mostly for the players. Championship disc golf, which is also about the spectator, may need *some bad shots to count two to increase the emotional engagement for both player and spectator. But in either traditional or Championship disc golf, good throws with good strategy should be in. *

~ Harold

 

[DavidSauls]

Good stuff, there.

 

[Lazerface]

I think Winthrop produces Pete May's vision of "the thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat" without question.

As far as some of the hole design goes, I don't think folks are complaining about anything being unfair. There will always be the "too punitive" folks, but that's what Winthrop is. That's what separates it. It's sort of a love it or hate it thing.

I was surprised by the number of people who hated hole 3. In my mind, hole 3 is not that much different than 1 at Maple Hill Gold. I think it's more about the manufactured feel than the way the hole plays. Maybe it's because Maple Hill has the Christmas trees and road that frame up the landing zone for the players. What I noticed at Winthrop is players not giving much thought to the landing area. At least it seemed that way on video. Maple Hill hole 1 produces the same kind of results though. Land where you need to, or lay up to the mouth. Obviously Maple Hill is a way better hole with the lake, elevation, cool green cut into the woods, but from a strategy and scoring perspective, I'm not sure it's that much different. Maybe Steve can put them on a graph for us.

I'm not a fan of hole 4. It simply is not fun to watch. I get the idea, but the 2nd mando needs to change. If you want to create a tunnel shot on that hole at least 1 mando is necessary. I think if the first mando is placed in the right spot then players will still be forced to throw a straight shot. If they hit a tree after that, then they can likely make an easy PAR, but it is what it is. No reason to create a 250 foot layup for every competitor.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

I find it interesting that someone who has never even had a PDGA membership is designing some of these holes. Not that it should be a requirement, but I think it would behoove Andrew to register and compete in a few tournaments to give him the perspective of a competitor. Having the angst of not being able to see your landing spots and other mental anguish players deal with could significantly benefit his course design.